Greetings, John --
Itching to discuss politics? Well I wouldn't have characterized
myself that way. I do see myself itching to discuss values in the
political realm.
Good. I'll bear that in mind.
The only person I've found so far that I could be interested
in joining in a cabal is Marsha. She's fed up with the back-
and-forth-going-nowhere and wants something NEW. Me too.
I would like to see a Politics of Quality. How about a new party
called "People of Quality". PoQ, either way. We wouldn't
care about left or right, we'd care about best.
That I'd join.
Marsha is a poet, artist, and devotee of New Age philosophy. There's
nothing wrong with eclecticism, except that in our search for something
different we tend to grab onto the latest fad. A philosophy of Quality (I
prefer Value) is fundamental, and RMP has provided a rationale that can make
it a lasting legacy. Unfortunately, the MoQ is flawed by the notion that
Quality (Value) exists independently of a cognizant observer, and by the
omission of a primary source. My efforts to correct these flaws have thus
far met with acrimony and resentment, which is why I'm interested in
reaching "open-minded" people before they become indoctrinated to the
"official line".
I can't say I'm excited by the "People of Quality" motto which reminds me of
the People's Party of Mao Tse-tung. Besides, unlike Marsha, I don't believe
people ARE Quality. They are only drawn to it by sensibility. I've always
liked Valuism as a title for a new philosophy. The term isn't in the
dictionary but has been used by philosophers and estheticians to describe
human value-sensibility. It might interest you to review the anonymous
essay on valuism at http://www.indval.org/IV.htm and compare it with
Pirsig's moralism. It's a novel concept of individualism presented clearly
and to the point, and is quite compatible (I think) with both the MoQ and
Essentialism. Let me know what you think.
[Ham]:
There's no "inside" or "outside" to betterness because it's a Value.
Values are proprietary to the individual and are reflected in the
social morality of like-minded people. ... One man's "goodness"
may be his neighbor's "evil". ... Just as all individuals are different,
so is their sense of value. That's the relational nature of the world
we live in.
[John]:
Aha. THAT is why you call your philosophy tenuous. If values
are the property of individuals then they are transitory, unreal and
fade away when the individual dies. The only way they can persist
is by individuals converting as many as possible to be like-minded.
Which explains the urge to form cabals and browbeat one another
into submission.
You've misconstrued my philosophy, John. Values aren't "the property of
individuals", they are our realization of a "greatness" beyond
individuality. We are designed as value-sensible creatures so that our
aspirations and concepts can transcend the limitations of differentiated
existence. Actually, Mr, Pirsig is expressing much the same idea, only he
dismisses the subjective sensibility that completes the principle. I'm not
out to "convert" anyone. A cabal wouldn't work anyway, since value
realization is intrinsic to the individual and is different for each of us.
You don't find the arguments against SOM compelling? Oh my.
You must be a heretic then.
So I'm told.
Nevertheless, People of Quality appreciate diversity of opinion.
Even if it's wrong. ;)
Perhaps the uniqueness of my "diverse opinion" compensates for my heresy
:-).
Anyway, I'm pleased that quality people like you appreciate it.
Thanks, John, and Happy Memorial Day weekend.
Essentially yours,
Ham
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
